20081028 Ver 1_401 Application_20080608

a ,
Y
Stantec
June 24, 2008
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300
Raleigh NC 27606
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
James Shern
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Dear James Shern and Cyndi Karoly:
P A I
? 0 8 1 028
? , U W(?
JUN 2 7 2008
DENR - WATER UUAU IY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Please find the attached Pre-construction Notification (PCN) and supporting documentation to apply for a
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 14 for the widening of Perry Creek Road in Raleigh, NC.
The City of Raleigh has retained Stantec Consulting to provide design services for the widening of Perry
Creek Road from US 1 (Capital Boulevard) to US 401 (Louisburg Road). The entire project will consist of
widening Perry Creek Road from a two and three lane road to a five lane section (two lanes in each direction
with a center turn lane), with curb and gutter and sidewalks. Widening associated with the replacement of the
bridge over Perry Creek has already been completed by NCDOT. The purpose of the Perry Creek Road
widening project is to improve safety for all travelers and reduce traffic congestion through the corridor.
Anticipated growth is expected to increase traffic volumes by more than 50% in the next thirty years on this
major thoroughfare.
Stantec has also been retained to provide environmental services related to stream and wetland delineation
and permitting. One stream and wetland area was found within the roadway corridor and is located at the
intersection of Perry Creek Road and Wildwood Forest Drive near US 1. General flow of water is from the
northern forested tract into a double culvert under Perry Creek Road and then eventually into an intermittent
stream on the south side of the road. Roadside drainage from the impervious warehouse area as well as the
surrounding residential areas empties into the stormwater channel at the culverts.
The small wetland area is a depressional wetland area that is connected to the downstream intermittent
channel via an ephemeral stormwater channel. The wetland is 0.019 acres and contains privet, smilax, red
maple, sweetgum and loblolly pine. The entire wetland will be impacted from fill associated with the widening
of the road.
Stantec staff met with Lauren C. Witherspoon (NCDWQ) onsite in November 2007 to obtain a Neuse Buffer
Determination on the downstream intermittent channel. Measures were taken to avoid impacts to the stream
and its associated buffer area. A scour pool is proposed to be installed at the culverts to disperse the
stormflow energy (up to a 10-year storm).
The flag locations for both the stream and wetland were surveyed using a sub-meter GPS unit and are shown
on the attached jurisdictional delineation map.
The attachments contain photos of typical areas of the site, the PCN form, a USGS topoquad location map,
soils mapping, a site map showing the impact area, the JD survey plat and associated materials, the Neuse
Scant ec
June 24, 2008
Perry Creek Road Widening - NWP 14
Page 2 of 3
Buffer Determination documentation and an agent authorization letter. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
Amber L. Coleman, LSS, PWS
Scientist
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attachment: Photos
PCN Form
USGS Map
Wake County Soil Survey Map
Site Map
JD Map
Wetland Data Sheets
Jurisdictional Determination Form
Neuse Buffer Determination
Agent Authorization
Stantec
June 24, 2008
Perry Creek Road Widening - NWP 14
Page 3 of 3
1. Stormwater channel above stream origin
2. Headcut at stream origin
3. Perennial section of stream
Office Use Only: Form Version March 08
'08 1 028
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing P A I
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 14
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
JUN 2 7 2008
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Lynn Raynor / Jed Niffenegger DENR - WATER C w fi,
WETLANDS AND STORMN'ATER BRANCH
Mailing Address: Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
222 West Hargett Street
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Amber L. Coleman, LSS, PWS
Company Affiliation: Stantec Consulting
Mailing Address: 801 Jones Franklin Road, Ste 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: amber.colemankstantec.com
Page 5 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Perry Creek Road Widening (PW 2008-3)
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): n/a
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): Right-of-Way (no PIN)
4. Location
County: Wake
Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): n/a
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Capital Boulevard
(US 1) northbound, turn right onto Perry Creek Road. Majority of Perry Creek Road is being
widened.
5. Site coordinates (Lat/Long or decimal degrees): 35.891064 N, 78.557314 W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 1.7 miles of Perry Creek Road
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Perry Creek
8. River Basin: N
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: At the project impact site (intersection of Perry Creek Road
and Wildwood Forest Drive), Perry Creek Road is currently three lanes wide. The area to the
north and south is forested. Multifamily homes are to the east and a large warehouse is
located to the west. General flow of water is from the northern forested tract into a double
Page 6 of 13
culvert under Perry Creek Road and then eventually into an intermittent stream on the south
side of the road. Roadside drainage from the impervious warehouse area as well as the
residential areas empties into the stormwater channel at the culverts.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The entire
project will consist of widening Perry Creek Road from a two and three lane road to a five
lane section (two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane) with curb and gutter and
sidewalks, from the existing intersection with US 1 (Capital Boulevard) eastward to the
intersection with US 401 (Louisburg . Widening associated with the replacement of the
bridge over Perry Creek has been completed by NCDOT. Typical roadway construction
equipment will be used.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the Perry Creek Road widening
project is to improve safety for all travelers and reduce traffic congestion through
corridor. Anticipated growth is expected to increase traffic volumes by more than 50% in the
next thirty years on this major thoroughfare.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. The bridge replacement was completed by NCDOT as T.I.P. project 13-
3529 in 2005.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future permit requests are anticipated for this project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Page 7 of 13
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed widening of Perry
Creek Road is anticipated to impact exactly 0.019 acres of wetland through the placement of
fill used in the roadbed construction.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
senarately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of
Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
"Impacted Wetlands" fill Forested No -130ft 0.019

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.019 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must he included. To calculate acreage. multiply leneth X width. then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Page 8 of 13
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of
Impact
(acres)
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): n/a
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.019
Open Water Impact (acres): n/a
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.019
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): n/a
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): n/a
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): n/a
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: n/a
Size of watershed draining to pond: n/a Expected pond surface area: n/a
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. The road construction design
was specifically tailored to avoid impacts to the nearby stream and buffer.
Page 9 of 13
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
According to the Nationwide Permit conditions for NWP 14, mitigation is not required for
projects under 1/10 acre to the discretion of the USACE agent. Due to the extremely small
acreage of impact, no physical mitigation is proposed for this project. Impacts to other
jurisdictional features have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/wry/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page three and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Page 10 of 13
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): n/a
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* Impact Required
Zone 1__-___,r_-, Multiplier
1 I n/a 13 (2 for Catawba) I n/a
2 1.5
Total I n/a I I n/a
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 13
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. n/a
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Existing impervious surface of the roadway
project is 11.84 ac (53.1%), NEW additional impervious surface is 4.85 acres making the new
total impervious area 16.69 ac (74.8%). Total project area (right-of-wax) is 22.3 ac. Stormwater
controls include standard erosion control practices required by the City of Raleigh and NCDENR
during construction. Post construction stormwater treatment will be controlled at Perry Creek
with forebays and level spreaders. A proposed scour pool is proposed at the downstream end of
the culverts at the intersection of Perry Creek Road and Wildwood Forest Drive and will prevent
erosion by dispersing energy (up to the 10 yr storm event).
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
n/a
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: This
project has a low potential for cumulative impact since it is not expected to have growth-
stimulating effects. Downstream water quality standards are not likely to be impacted.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
Page 12 of 13
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
n/a
Page 13 of 13
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
FT
�(! f Jas ,; ' ,� ';t`� !; '� 1 � � 'Y� �• � Ojtq
i i
41 v
EV
l -
�
• 0 a
.�
so
1 2
ji
-t-
,�'. Chi •�a i • :,' ,` � ,l� io 0
Lake
Jam- _ :.�-� • _ ,. ,� �'".. _ �� �• \� ��
300
z
•
Perry Creek Road Widening
Wake Forest and Raleigh East
7.5 Minute Topoquad
Feet
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
�s 1
--S bst

�
co
O
(n
i
UU'
O
L
4

TAI C
ST A ITCH
]Not to Scab]
a_ D ou a
d
FR1K Fabric MIn. D= LO Ft.
Max. d= 40 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class B RI -Ro
)M, STA. 11+75 -Y2- GRADE= 7.6
DETAIL
SF
STA A A
DITCH
(Not to Scab)
D
FRter Fabric Min. D= 2.SFt.
MOX. d= 2.5 Ft.
-When B Is < 6.0' B= 2 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class I Rip-Rap
FROAA STA_ 91?9R RT -1- GRADE= 1.25%
ht,
F
c
L
L
C
co
O
O
N
N1L
LO.
WETLANDS
825 SQ.FT. INV
0.019 ACRES
F
cr_
? Y
O Lil
zW
LLJU
LLI
m?
LLJ
LLJ CL
zi
J C)
= o,
U gj
Q+
gd C
N VE
D TAI
STANDARD A DITCH
(Not to scab]
ou d D ound
Filter Fabric Min. D= I.5 Ft.
Mox. d= 1,5 Ft.
-When B Is < 6.0' R= 4 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class B RID-Rap
FROM STA. 19+1A LT -L- GRADE- 3.33%
amp
_. l
CS_G
REMOVE
PORTION

L-11',W=7.5' D-2'
STANDARD BASE DITCH
SEE DETAIL E
n
-YY1
l

,k z
V
W
A
?I
O 5
U
RETAIN
?o
l/C
IF-
4 - COLLAR I
53s
RT
(f >_?? o a ?a Ny=?? BEGIN
I INTERMITTENT
STREAM
1
1 N O `tn
1 ??FV W
p H ? "'°a
?W F
BEGIN
PERENNIAL
STREAM
00
ADJ JB W O
RETAIN (n c
?I!
ULJ
CB F u
- J CB
Lr)
Q Lr
?N
N d CL
w
U
6 T NS CIA9$ 8 PJP RAP
W/11 SY FIL7ER FABRI
L-12' W=lA' D=1'
wTE, .=RAE mae
CK[4fo or,
REVISIONS
ND. ORiE
SCALE
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. NSCALE P-40'
SW's 300, 801 Jones Frmkiin Road Mato
R.WlQN 1K PERRY CREEK R0.
27606
1N. 919.851.6666 Sr[R xo.
F:,9 19.8561024
CLanLu MiK.COn PUnt N0.
W
O ilQ
m 'rW
Q? TO WAKE FOREST g
V
UI Jp
OUAANi RD v?
PERRv CREEK q-- ? -J-_
SIT1I E
TO RALEIGH
1
VICINI rY MAP
NUi-r U-JGALL
4 F. REX COOPER. CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP WAS PREPARED IN
PART FROM AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY OF THE WETLANDS AND
MAPS AS REFERENCED HEREON THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT `` tuHUriMI r
SURVEYED ARE SHOWN AS BROKEN LINES AND THAT THE ?` Trrrr
COORDINATES SHOWN ARE NC GRID - NAD83. WITNESS MY HAND
AND SEAL THIS 2ND DAY OF JANUARY. 2008.
PROFESSWNAL LAND SU EYOR NC 14269 L t
NOTES.
L THIS MAP DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY SURVEY BY IRIS FBW.L
2. RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES SHOWN ARE TAKEN FROM THE PERRY CREEK ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DONE BY STANTEC.
3. COORDINATES SHOWN ON IRS MAP ARE NC GRID-NAD83 AND WERE
OBTAINED USN, MAPPING GRADE TRIMBLE GPS RECEIVERS POST-
PROCESSED USING TRIMME PATHFINDER SOFTWARE-
4. STREAM OPoQ25 WERE VERIFIED N THE FIELD BY LAUREN COBS.
HCDWO ON NOVB48ER 19. 2007.
5, TOTAL WETLAND ACREAGE : 0.09 ACREAGE
6. AREAS COMPUTED USING THE COORDINATE METHOD.
FLAG NORTHING EASTING
A- 01 779554.393 2131156.099
A-02 779579.532 2131151.685
A-03 779588.815 2131141.926
A-04 779632.311 2131141.853
A-05 779632.311 2131148.957
A-06 779595.968 2131153.174
A-07 779554.418 2131170.960
6 -OI 779250.716 2131083.899
B-02 779298.518 2131113.523
"This Certifies that this copy of this plat accurately depicts the boundary of the jurisdiction of Section 404
of the Clean Water Act in the areas impacted by the Dissent proposed acbvdy,, as determined by the
undersigned an this date. Other areas of plradiction may be present on the site but have not been
delineated. Unless there has been a change In the law or our published regulations, this determination of
risdiction may be relied d?ermmatioa was made utilizing the 1987 ( Corps of ? Engineers Wetlands Delineation M nR?.* This riot to exceed five years from this date. Name:
Title:
Date:
AID:
WETLANDS
825 SOFT.
0.019 ACRES
-07
u
?r1 rc
- ?B' RCP
rc?I M _
IIIh i
ll f? '
??11? 141
U
IL-
5
w
z
Cr
w
z
w?
U

F
pA
?P
BEGIN
INTERMITTENT
I STREAM
P
Q?? I
BEGIN
PERENNIAL
STREAM
e``P?o?p
PQ? ?O
V
IX
WROWOOO FORE5r OWE
s\
<9
?O
S?
\\ S
Cy
\\\ 2T
EIP
R/V
AC
SOFT
RCP
CONC
LEGEND
RIGHT-OF-WAY LIPS
(SEE NOTE 2)
INTERMITTENT STREAMS
PERENNIAL STREAMS
WETLAND BOUNDARY LINE
EXISTING IRON PIPE
RIGHT-OF-NAY
ACRES
SQUARE FEET
REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
CONCRETE
40 0 40 80
GRAPHIC SCALE
1' = 40'
0
ASP
W
WW Z
U o
W U) =
LL- LL] W ~
? W? Of
m LL O z
Q O LL-
Q Q =
c?
Z
L,j
-- o O 0
F 0 J
06 Q U
V) p W OJ
M -1
W
a LL] F-
w F dS • z
Z ::D
- O
U
WQ
(D LLI
_
Y
F- a
3
F-
-REVISIONS
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NO.: 171000535
SURVEYED BY:
DRAWN BY., JLB
CHECKED BY: FRC
DATE: 12/20/07
SHEET I OF I
U.\171000535\SUiVEYVDUI
171000535-JD-MAP-O7I22O.OGN
A-04)-IA-05
\ \\.\
\
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Per Creek Road Widening Date: 11/6/07
Applicant / Owner: City of Raleigh Count : Wake
Investigator: ALC State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Plot ID: WETLAND
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Scientific Name Stratum Indicator
1 Chinese rivet Li ustrum sinense shrub FAC
2 Common reenbriar Smilax rotundifolia vine FAC
3 Red maple Acer rubrum cano FAC
4 Sweet um Li uidambar st raciflua canopy FAC+
5 Loblolly pine Pinus taeda canopy FAC
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC- : 100%
Remarks:
Typical successional area
HYDROLOGY
[ ] Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
[ ] Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
[ ] Aerial Photographs
[ ] Other
[X] No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water
Depth of Free Water in Pit
Depth to Saturated Soil
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
[ ] Inundated
[ ] Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ] Water Marks
[X] Drift Lines
[ ] Sediment Deposits
[X] Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
- (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[X] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
(in) [X] Water-stained Leaves
[ ] Local Soil Survey Data
- (in) [ ] FAC-Neutral Test
[ ] Other (Explain in Remarks)
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO

Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10YR 4/2 L
2-12+ 10YR 6/2 10YR 7/8 many/ prominent SCL
7.5YR 5/8 common / prominent

HYDRIC SOIL IND ICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[ j Sulfidic Odor
[ ] Aquic Moisture Regime
[ ] Reducing Conditions
X Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ] Concretions
[ ] High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ] Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ] Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ] Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H dro h tic Vegetation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO
Hydric Soil Present? YES NO
Remarks:
This is a low quality marginal wetland on the upstream side of a culvert that goes under Perry Creek Road
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Per Creek Road Widening Date: 11/6/07
Applicant / Owner: City of Raleigh Count : Wake
Investigator: ALC State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES NO Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Plot ID: UPLAND
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Scientific Name Stratum Indicator
1 Red maple Acer rubrum canopy FAC
2 Sweet um Li uidambar st raciflua canopy FAC+
3 Loblolly pine Pinus taeda canopy FAC
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC- : 100%
Remarks:
Typical successional area - primary plant is Loblolly Pine
HYDROLOGY
[ ] Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
[ ] Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
[ ] Aerial Photographs
[ ] Other
[X] No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water
Depth of Free Water in Pit
Depth to Saturated Soil
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
[ ] Inundated
[ ] Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ] Water Marks
[ ] Drift Lines
[ ] Sediment Deposits
[ ] Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
- (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
- (in) [ ] Water-stained Leaves
[ ] Local Soil Survey Data
(in) [ ] FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO

Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A 10YR 4/3 SL
4-12+ B 10YR 5/3 SCL

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
[ ] Aquic Moisture Regime
[ ] Reducing Conditions
Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ] Concretions
[ ] High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ] Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ] Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ] Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
Not a hydric soil
L-

I
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H dro h tic Vegetation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO
H dric Soil Present? YES NO
Remarks:
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/borough: WAKE City: RALEIGH
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.891113° N, Long. 78.557201° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Perry Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Neuse River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020201070100
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
? Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
? TNWs, including territorial seas
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
? Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
? Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 50+ linear feet: 3-4 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.019 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
? Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
` Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbodya is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 50.6 acres
Drainage area: 50.6 acres
Average annual rainfall: 46.07 inches
Average annual snowfall: 3.9 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 2 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 1-2 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 1-2 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: Project stream; UT to Perry Creek; Perry Creek; Neuse River.
Tributary stream order, if known: 1.
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3-4 feet
Average depth: 1-3 feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ® Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Active headcut plus excessive sediment.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: minimal.
Tributary geometry: Meandering
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 2 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Intermittent but not seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 6-10
Describe flow regime: intermittent for approximately 50 feet before turning perennial.
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Discrete and confined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
El Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? High Tide Line indicated by: ? Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects ? survey to available datum;
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ? physical markings;
? physical markings/characteristics ? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: Channel observed during a drought - water was not present.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
7Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Hardwoods, between 50 and 200 feet wide.
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size:0.019acres
Wetland type. Explain:Small headwater wetland.
Wetland quality. Explain: Low quality due to small size and lack of diverse vegetative community. Probably does
provide stormwater treatment functions.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Ephemeral flow. Explain: Water likely flows from wetland into ephemeral channel during storm events.
Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
® Not directly abutting
® Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: Connected via ephermeral stormwater channel.
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 1-2 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1-2 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: Wetland observed during a drought - water was not present.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Successional vegetation at minimal cover (25-50%).
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 1
Approximately ( 0.019 ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
N 0.019
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland provides water treatment and
minimal vegetation cover and habitat.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
? TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
? Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: Physical features indicated seasonal flow (channel and streambed features = score on the DWQ stream ID form)
and DWQ concurrence.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 50+ linear feet 3-4 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
? Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.019 acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
? Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
? Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
? Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED tINTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):ro
? which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
? from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
? Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
? Other factors. Explain:
8See Footnote # 3.
'To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
? Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
? Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
? Lakes/ponds: acres.
? Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
? Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:Wake Forest 1:24000.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Wake County.
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
0 Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
WAT?9Q I - Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
`O G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
February 25, 2008
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Attn: Amber Coleman
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
NBRRO 08-044
IPRRO 08-009
County: Wake
BASIN:
Neuse River Buffer Determination X Tar-Pamlico Buffer Determination
(15A NCAC 2B .0233) (15A NCAC 2B.0259)
Project Name: Perry Creek Road Site
Location/Directions: located southwest of the intersection of Wildwood Forest Drive and Perry Creek Road
Subject Stream: UT to Perry Creek
Date of Determination: 11/19/07
Feature(s) Not
Subject Subject Start @ Stop@ Stream
Form Pts. Soil
Survey USGS
Topo I/P*
A X Fla Intermittent Start X I
A X Fla Perennial Start X P
*I/P - Intermittent/Perennial
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Wake County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. Features that are checked
"Subject' have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There may be
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water Quality.
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that a surface water
exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by the Director. A request for a
determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Cyndi Karoly, DWQ
Wetlands/401 Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260. Individuals that dispute a determination
by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water from the buffer rule may ask for
an ad judicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants are
hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until the affected party (including
downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. DWQ recommends that the applicant
conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask ore
for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General No Carolina
Ntttrally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
Ar. Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
2/25/08
Page 2 of 2
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This
determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
The (owner/future owners) should notify the Division of Water Quality (including any other Local, State, and
Federal Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property
(stated above). This project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries
should be directed to the Division of Water Quality (Central Office) at (919)-733-1786, and the US Army
Corp of Engineers (Raleigh Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-876-8441.
sp ctfully,
Lauren C. Witherspoon
Environmental Senior Specialist
CC: Wetlands/ Stormwater Branch, 2321 Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27604
RRO/SWP File Copy
Central Files
NoLCarolina
Natfflrally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.m.us 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/' 0% Post Consumer Paper
w 0) N r. O Qo
O
7
m at O (D?
O
Sp
F
B
Po,
oti'?Fq?
o
CENTER LINE DITCH . ao
\ - RCP
36 RP
c/) _u W 36' RCP
x x _0
Dzz ?AA V) co mxz
F_
a
?j of ?
?/ /?
Ltd' ?? ?a C?lC1'
December 10, 2007
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 27402-1890
ATTN.: Mr, James Shern, Regulatory Specialist
Subject: Jurisdictional Determination and Permitting Issues
for Perry Creek Road-City of Raleigh, NC - Wake County, NC
Dear Mr. Shern
The City of Raleigh has retained Stantec Consulting Services of Raleigh, NC to delineate the
jurisdictional waters and wetlands on the Perry Creek Road widening project for areas located
at the existing inlet and outlet ends of the 36" pipe crossing located at the intersection of
Wildwood Forest Drive and Perry Creek Road. Stantec has the City's authorization to represent
the City with regards to the wetland delineation and jurisdictional issues.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions or need any additional information,
please contact me at (919)-890-3802 or led.niffenegger(a ci.raleigh.nc.us .
Sincerely,
Jed Niffenegger
Public Works Department
City of Raleigh
OFFICES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 590 • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
RECYCLED PAPER